EARTH NEGOTIATIONS BULLETIN
PUBLISHED BY THE INTERNATIONAL INSTITUTE FOR
SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT (IISD)
WRITTEN AND EDITED BY:
Paola Bettelli
Chad Carpenter, LL.M.
Peter Doran
Benjamin Simmons
Steve Wise
Editor
Pamela Chasek, Ph.D.
Managing Editor
Langston James Goree VI "Kimo"
Vol. 12 No. 55
Saturday, 9 August 1997
REPORT OF THE MEETINGS OF THE SUBSIDIARY BODIES TO THE
FRAMEWORK CONVENTION ON CLIMATE CHANGE
28 JULY - 7 AUGUST 1997
The subsidiary bodies to the Framework Convention on
Climate Change (FCCC) met from 28 July - 7 August 1997 at
the Hotel Maritim in Bonn, Germany. A total of 145 Parties
and Observer States participated in the session, as well as
691 representatives from NGOs and the media. The seventh
session of the Ad Hoc Group on the Berlin Mandate (AGBM-7)
further streamlined the negotiating text for a protocol or
another legal instrument. The Subsidiary Body for
Implementation (SBI-6) reached agreement on arrangements
for intergovernmental meetings and the programme budget,
but will have to further discuss the financial mechanism
and national communications at its next meeting.
Discussions in the Subsidiary Body for Scientific and
Technological Advice (SBSTA-6) centered on methodological
issues, such as methods for inventories and projections of
greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. SBSTA also considered
technology transfer and activities implemented jointly
(AIJ). A joint SBI/SBSTA contact group produced a decision
for adoption at COP-3 on the division of labor between the
two groups. The fifth session of the Ad Hoc Group on
Article 13 (AG13-5) continued its review of proposals for a
multilateral consultative process (MCP).
A BRIEF HISTORY OF THE FCCC
COP-1
The first meeting of the Conference of the Parties to the
FCCC (COP-1) took place in Berlin from 28 March - 7 April
1995. Delegates reached agreement on what many believed to
be the central issue before COP-1 - adequacy of
commitments. The result was a mandate to launch a process
toward appropriate action for the period beyond the year
2000, including strengthening of the commitments of
developed countries. Delegates also reached agreement on a
number of other important issues including: the
establishment of a pilot phase for implementation of joint
projects; the location of the Permanent Secretariat in
Bonn, Germany; the budget for the Secretariat; financial
procedures; and the establishment of the subsidiary bodies.
Delegates, however, did not reach consensus on the rules of
procedure. This critical issue, including a decision on the
voting rules and the composition of the Bureau, was
deferred until COP-2.
AD HOC GROUP ON THE BERLIN MANDATE (AGBM): COP-1
established an open-ended Ad Hoc Group on the Berlin
Mandate (AGBM) to begin a process to enable it to take
appropriate action for the period beyond 2000, including
the strengthening of the commitments of Annex I Parties
through the adoption of a protocol or another legal
instrument. At AGBM-1, held in Geneva from 21-25 August
1995, delegates considered several issues, including an
analysis and assessment to identify possible policies and
measures for Annex I Parties and requests for inputs to
subsequent sessions. At AGBM-2, which was held in Geneva
from 30 October - 3 November 1995, delegates heard new
ideas for the structure and form of a possible protocol.
At AGBM-3, held in Geneva from 5-8 March 1996, delegates
heard a number of specific proposals on new commitments for
Annex I Parties, including a two-phase CO2 emissions
reduction target proposed by Germany. They also discussed
how Annex I countries might distribute or share new
commitments, and whether those should take the form of an
amendment or protocol. AGBM-4, held from 8-19 July 1996 in
Geneva, completed its in-depth analyses of the likely
elements of a protocol or other legal instrument, and
appeared ready to move forward on the preparation of a
negotiating text at its next session.
SUBSIDIARY BODY FOR SCIENTIFIC AND TECHNOLOGICAL ADVICE
(SBSTA): SBSTA was established by COP-1 to link:
scientific, technical and technological assessments;
information provided by competent international bodies; and
the policy-oriented needs of the COP. At SBSTA-1, held in
Geneva from 28-30 August 1995, delegates confronted
technically and politically complex issues including:
scientific assessments, national communications and AIJ
under the pilot phase. Among the more contentious issues
were definition of SBSTA’s relationship with the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the terms
of reference and composition of the technical advisory
panels on technologies and methodologies (TAPs) and the
elaboration of guidelines for national communications from
non-Annex I Parties.
SBSTA-2, held in Geneva from 27 February-4 March 1996,
considered the IPCC’s Second Assessment Report (SAR) and
the Technical Advisory Panels (TAPs) and could not yet
agree on how to absorb or respond to scientific predictions
of climate change. Although initial discussions gave the
impression that SBSTA-2 would greet the IPCC’s predictions
with less resistance than in previous FCCC negotiations,
oil producers and other developing countries ultimately
blocked consensus on specific conclusions about the SAR.
Weekend negotiations resulted in a fragile agreement on
language defining the divergence of opinion.
At SBSTA-3, held from 9-16 July 1996, delegates discussed
the SAR and sent an unfinished draft decision with brackets
to the COP for resolution. Decisions were adopted in
conjunction with the SBI on Communications from Annex I
Parties and on Communications from non-Annex I Parties.
Progress was made on a roster of experts and technical
panels.
SUBSIDIARY BODY FOR IMPLEMENTATION (SBI): The SBI was
established by the COP to assist in the review and
assessment of the implementation of the Convention and in
the preparation and implementation of the COP’s decisions.
SBI-1 took place from 31 August - 1 September 1995 in
Geneva. The SBI addressed a number of issues and
recommended that the COP adopt the draft Memorandum of
Understanding with the GEF as the financial mechanism,
proposing a draft decision on this item to be adopted by
COP-2.
At SBI-2, held in Geneva from 27 February - 4 March 1996,
delegates considered in-depth reviews of national
communications, and matters related to the financial
mechanism. While delegates welcomed the GEF Council’s
adoption of its operational strategy, many noted the need
to expedite the process of providing “full agreed costs”
for non-Annex I communications or risk serious delay. At
SBI-3, held from 9-16 July 1996 in Geneva, differences were
resolved in closed sessions, and were considered for
adoption by the open SBI session only after consensus had
been reached on: technology transfer; the operating budget
of the Secretariat; the Annex to the Memorandum of
Understanding (MOU) between the GEF Council and the COP;
and national communications from non-Annex I Parties.
AD HOC GROUP ON ARTICLE 13 (AG13): AG13 was set up to
consider the establishment of a multilateral consultative
process available to Parties to resolve questions on
implementation. AG13-1, held from 30-31 October 1995 in
Geneva, decided to request Parties, non-Parties, and
intergovernmental and non-governmental organizations to
make written submissions in response to a questionnaire on
a multilateral consultative process. At AG13-2, held in
July 1996 in Geneva, participants received a synthesis of
responses to a questionnaire on establishing an MCP under
Article 13 (FCCC/AG13/1996/1) to be considered at the
Group’s December session. Delegates adopted a decision
extending the AG13 mandate to COP-3 and establishing a role
in examining ways to apply an MCP to a protocol in
cooperation with the AGBM.
COP-2
The Second Conference of the Parties (COP-2) met in Geneva
from 8-19 July 1996. More than 1500 participants from
governments, intergovernmental organizations and NGOs
participated. While many of the more contentious issues,
such as treatment of the IPCC Second Assessment Report
(SAR), were left unresolved, COP-2 did produce some
important political statements. The COP concluded by noting
the “Geneva Declaration,” which endorses the IPCC
conclusions and calls for legally-binding objectives and
significant reductions in greenhouse gas emissions.
The Conference also saw a significant shift in position by
the US, which for the first time supported a legally
binding agreement to fulfill the Berlin Mandate. However,
even as Parties prepared to strengthen commitments, COP-2
highlighted the sharpest differences yet between
delegations. The strong declarations of support for the SAR
were far from unanimous, suggesting the need for
substantial work in future sessions of the COP’s subsidiary
bodies before December 1997 when COP-3 meets in Kyoto,
Japan.
SUBSIDIARY BODY MEETINGS AFTER COP-2: The subsidiary bodies
met in Geneva from 9-18 December 1996. AGBM-5 considered
proposals from 14 Parties or groups of Parties regarding
the strengthening the commitments in Articles 4.2(a) and
(b), advancing the implementation of Article 4.1 and
possible elements of a protocol or another legal
instrument. Delegates adopted conclusions requesting the
Secretariat to produce a “framework compilation” of
proposals for further consideration. At SBSTA-4,
discussions were complex and often difficult, but delegates
confirmed future cooperation with the IPCC and agreed to
apply the revised IPCC 1996 guidelines for national
greenhouse gas (GHG) inventories. Delegates also agreed to
further work on revisions to the Uniform Reporting Format
and methodological issues pertaining to AIJ. SBI-4
finalized agreement on the Annex to the Memorandum of
Understanding (MOU) between the Conference of the Parties
(COP) and the Council of the Global Environmental Facility
(GEF). AG13-3 further elaborated positions on a possible
MCP and agreed to continue consideration at the next
meeting in February.
Three of the subsidiary bodies met in Bonn, Germany, from
25-28 February 1997. SBSTA-5 considered a number of issues
and reached agreement on the Uniform Reporting Format,
requested a work plan for an in-depth review of second
national communications and requested a number of reports
on technology transfer. AG13-4 made notable progress in
further refining the function and scope of a MCP and agreed
to a “framework compilation” that reflects areas of
convergence and divergence. SBI-5 discussions were complex
and often lengthy, but delegates agreed on the timetable
and process for review of the programme budget and agreed
on the FCCC input to the UN General Assembly Special
Session (UNGASS). SBI-5 could not agree on the review of
the financial mechanism or the activities of the GEF.
AGBM-6 met from 3-7 March 1997 in Bonn. Delegates focused
deliberations on the Framework Compilation, which
incorporated the textual proposals from Parties as well as
other proposals for elements of a protocol or another legal
instrument. AGBM-6 also convened “non-groups” to exchange
views and merge different proposals.
Delegates “streamlined” the compilation text by merging or
eliminating some overlapping provisions within the myriad
of proposals contained in the Framework Compilation and
brought the process one step, albeit a small one, closer to
fulfilling its mandate. Much of the discussion centered on
a proposal from the EU for a 15% cut in a “basket” of
greenhouse gases by the year 2010 compared to 1990 levels.
Nonetheless, other proposals emerged in the eleventh hour,
signaling that AGBM-6, despite the hopes of many observers,
had yet to foster much progress on several fundamental
points.
REPORT OF THE MEETINGS OF THE SUBSIDIARY BODIES
The subsidiary bodies to the Framework Convention on
Climate Change (FCCC) met from 28 July - 7 August 1997 at
the Hotel Maritim in Bonn, Germany. AGBM-7 met from 31 July
- 7 August 1997. SBI-6 and SBSTA-6 met from 28-30 July and
held final sessions on 5 August. AG13-5 met from 28-30 July
1997.
AGBM-7 met in four “non-groups,” which were closed to
observers, and deliberated at length. The non-groups
considered: the advancement of existing commitments under
Article 4.1; policies and measures; quantified emission
limitation and reduction objectives (QELROs); and
institutions and processes. The non-groups produced four
revised texts in which all paragraphs remain open for final
negotiation and are not agreed.
SBI-6 met in Plenary, as well as in a number of contact
groups, and considered: the financial mechanism; national
communications; arrangements for intergovernmental
meetings; the programme budget and an NGO consultation
mechanism. SBSTA-6 plenary sessions discussed cooperation
with international organizations, technology transfer and
AIJ. A contact group met several times to consider
methodological issues. A joint SBI/SBSTA contact group
considered the division of labor between the two groups.
AG13 further considered proposals on a possible
multilateral consultative process (MCP) during three
sessions.
AD HOC GROUP ON THE BERLIN MANDATE
PLENARY
Chair Raúl Estrada-Oyuela (Argentina) opened the seventh
session of the AGBM on 31 July and noted that as COP-3
approached, he remained optimistic despite expected
difficulties. He noted that the G-7+1 meeting in Denver and
UNGASS demonstrated new interest in climate change. He
pointed out that despite some criticism of the scope of the
Berlin Mandate, AGBM is not competent to change it. He
noted that under the FCCC, developed countries committed
themselves to take the lead in reducing emissions, and not
until this occurred could developing countries assume
greater responsibilities. He acknowledged progress toward
an agreement, and pointed to the EU commitment and proposal
as a step forward. He noted that two Parties’ target
definitions would be crucial.
FCCC Executive Secretary Michael Zammit-Cutajar indicated
that, at Kyoto he expected a clear agreement on the
understanding of Annex I country commitments under the
FCCC. The result from Kyoto should be a “strong punch”
against “ business as usual.” It should send a signal to
the real economic actors that things would change in a way
that is compatible both with their interests and with
sustainable development. Although optimistic, he recognized
the difficulty in reducing the proposals on the table to
the sort of signal he described. He urged delegations to
enter into a negotiating mode proving that they are able to
go beyond “playing with text.”
TANZANIA, on behalf of the G-77/China, said that the basis
for action and for an agreement must be strict adherence to
the Convention and to the Berlin Mandate. He indicated that
an agreement entailed advancing commitments for Annex I
Parties while avoiding new ones for non-Annex I Parties. He
referred to UNGASS outcomes, highlighting that in addition
to establishing targets, there was widespread agreement
that it will be necessary to take into account the adverse
effects of response measures on all countries, especially
developing ones.
IPCC Chair Bert Bolin remarked on the Second Assessment
Report (SAR), which states that “the balance of evidence
suggests a discernible human influence on global climate.”
He stated that enhanced GHG concentrations correspond to a
change in global mean temperature of 0.7-2.1º C, but are
limited to 0.2-1.1º C by aerosol concentrations and climate
system inertia. He stated that global warming for the full
range of IPCC emission scenarios and climate sensitivities
was estimated to be in the range 1.0-3.5º C by the year
2100. He noted that recent analysis shows that Annex I
countries were responsible for 64% of the total CO2
emissions in 1996, down from 75% in 1985. Although most of
the increased emissions stem from non-Annex I countries,
they will not reach 50% of the total emissions for another
15-20 years. He noted that stabilization of CO2 in the
long-term requires efforts by all countries.
LUXEMBOURG, on behalf of the EU, recalled its proposal that
“Annex X” Parties, individually or jointly, in accordance
with the Berlin Mandate, should reduce emission levels for
CO2, CH4 and N2O together (weighted total, using Global
Warming Potential with a 100-year time horizon) by 2005 by
at least 7.5% below 1990 levels. He also proposed that HFC,
PFC and SF6 should be added no later than 2000 to the
“basket” of gases for these reduction objectives. He said
that developed countries must face up to their
responsibilities and take the lead. However, all Parties
must realize that in the longer term an increasingly global
effort is needed to tackle the issue.
BRAZIL summarized its proposal
(FCCC/AGBM/1997/MISC.1/Add.3) by calling for a direct and
objective link to be established between the annual rate of
GHG emissions and the increase in global mean surface
temperature. He proposed that reduction targets be
established in terms of temperature change. He called for
the establishment of a mechanism to guarantee that non-
Annex I countries address climate change. He called for the
development of quantitative targets for non-Annex I
countries as they reach appropriate levels of well-being.
He proposed that the Clean Development Fund receive
mandatory contributions from Annex I Parties in proportion
to their overall non-compliance. He noted four points of
negotiation: reduction targets of Annex I Parties expressed
in temperature change; time of performance review for Annex
I countries; initial year of consideration for historical
emissions; and value of assessed contribution to the Clean
Development Fund. He requested that the proposal be
formally submitted to COP-3.
ZIMBABWE, on behalf of the African Group, expressed hope
that the AGBM will accelerate the negotiating process and
reach agreement by the end of the next session. She noted
that African countries are often marginalized by the
interim funding mechanism process. She expressed concern
with the lack of progress made in political deliberations
and urged that the policies and measures and quantified
emissions limitation and reduction objectives within
specified time frames contain provisions for socio-economic
impact assessments. She noted that any decision reached
should not increase the socio-economic and environmental
burdens placed on Africa. She stated that an agreement
should include commitment of financial resources and
technologies for African countries.
The RUSSIAN FEDERATION said the outcome should go through
the same ratification process as the Convention and that
CO2 reduction targets must be considered alongside goals
for removal. SLOVENIA signaled its preparation to
eventually join Annex I Parties in complying with legally
binding commitments and supported an EU proposal for GHG
reductions.
The US said the AGBM agreement must: maintain legally
binding targets; provide maximum flexibility; include
credible and realistic levels; include mechanisms for
national compliance; and involve all countries. He said it
was not possible to decide what kind of numerical target
might be undertaken without knowing what constraints would
be imposed on such a target. The US had introduced
proposals on emissions trading, joint implementation, a
budget process and a banking process to increase
flexibility and reduce costs. In this regard he outlined
two new proposals, which he said are critical in
determining the agreement structure. He explained that a
legally binding agreement would require a compliance
mechanism to which flexibility concepts could be added,
although these were currently tinged with some political
heat. He also called for a comprehensive approach including
all GHGs, sources, sectors and sinks. Where countries
failed to use the enabling IPCC methodology to adopt such
an approach they should be penalized. On all-country
participation, he called for an improved definition of
Article 4.1 and the Berlin Mandate. He noted that while
there is a difference between Annex I and non-Annex I
countries, it was unreasonable to expect that nothing could
be done between the Annex I and non-Annex I commitments.
The US proposal includes a recommendation for a long-term
process toward the objective of the Convention including
all countries and seeking evolution. A new negotiation
would certainly follow the AGBM, and within that timeframe
all countries must participate.
UZBEKISTAN said the countries with economies in transition
require investment in new technologies.
SAUDI ARABIA addressed contradictions in Annex I policies,
such as increased fossil fuel production by developed
countries in the event of lower consumption, leading to
lower imports, and subsidies provided to some fossil fuel
sectors while taxing the use of other fossil fuels. He
asked for consideration of compensation in the event of
negative economic impacts on some States.
The Chair introduced the documentation, including the main
negotiating text compiled at AGBM-6
(FCCC/AGBM/1997/3/Add.1) and proposals from Parties
received after AGBM-6 (FCCC/AGBM/1997/MISC.1/Add.2,3,4, and
5). The Chair stated that delegates would meet in closed
sessions and briefings for observers would be held each
morning.
The Chair then invited a number of Parties with new
proposals to make presentations. JAPAN called for: a SBSTA
study on the removal of carbon dioxide via sinks before the
issue is taken up under QELROS; a review process to reflect
the latest science; and for linkage between entry into
force of an agreement and the total aggregate emissions of
ratifying countries.
GEORGIA called for improved financial mechanisms for the
energy sector and encouragement of private sector
participation in AIJ. SAMOA, on behalf of the ALLIANCE OF
SMALL ISLAND STATES (AOSIS), outlined proposals to fully
reflect the precautionary principle in the work of the
AGBM. He said a guiding objective of the AGBM agreement
should be to ensure that global sea level rise resulting
from climate change does not exceed 20 cm above 1990
levels, and that the average global temperature does not
exceed 2ºC above the pre-industrial level.
In Plenary on 4 August, the Chairs of the non-group
reported on their work to date. Delegates also heard
presentations from NGOs, including the International
Council for Local Environmental Initiatives, a
representative from business and industry, and the Climate
Action Network. JAPAN commented on an NGO report suggesting
that Japan had proposed targets that would allow for large
increases of CO2 emissions by Annex I countries by the year
2010. He stressed that Japan had not made such a proposal
and reiterated Japan’s position to reduce CO2 emissions to
less than 1 ton per capita by the year 2100. The Chair of
the OECD Expert Group on Annex I Countries indicated that
the group sought to provide analytical support for AGBM.
REPORTS OF THE NON-GROUPS
NON-GROUP ON QELROS
The non-group on QELROs held a number of meetings
throughout the week and, based on a draft by Chair Luiz
Gylvan Meira Filho (Brazil), produced a consolidated text
with alternatives for each of the following sections:
coverage, nature of target and baseline, banking,
borrowing, Parties with economies in transition, regional
economic integration organizations, flexibility (emissions
trading, joint implementation and cooperative efforts by
interested Parties), measurement, reporting and
communication of information, review of implementation and
compliance, possible impacts on developing countries, and
an annex listing gases.
Two safeguard “notes” were introduced at the beginning of
the draft negotiating text. One indicates that “all
paragraphs remain open for final negotiation, and existing
brackets within each paragraph do not prejudge the status
of that paragraph.” The other states, inter alia, that in
the view of many delegations, there are some very important
inter-linkages between the different elements of the text
and inclusion of proposals in any section of the text does
not prejudge consideration of those inter-linkages.
Differing views on how alternatives on flat rate targets
and differentiation would be reflected in the document were
settled after extensive consultations through a chapeau in
the section on “Nature of target and baseline” stating that
“as yet no consensus has been reached on QELROs and Parties
recognize that when consensus on the establishment and
nature of QELROs is reached, further consolidation and
amendment of the text will be required.”
Coverage: Bracketed text in this section refers to the
anthropogenic emissions by sources, anthropogenic removals
by sinks and GHGs to which QELROs shall apply. Brackets
also encompass methodologies for establishing anthropogenic
removal by sinks and the criteria for addition of
greenhouse gases to an “Annex G” under which these gases
would be listed. Other brackets refer to the periodic
revision of the list of GHGs.
Nature of target and baseline: In this section nine
alternatives address distribution of QELROs for Parties
according to a flat rate approach or a differentiated one,
and include an alternative on budget periods. Variations of
flat rate targets and baselines include the establishment
of target dates for the return of anthropogenic emissions
to 1990 levels by a certain year (2000, 2005, 2010), and
reduction of anthropogenic emissions by an average 15% to
20% below 1990 levels by a certain year (2005, 2010, 2020).
The alternative on budget periods entails setting caps for
GHG emissions within specific time periods for countries
listed under “Annex Q” or “Annex Q1.” The countries to be
included in these annexes has yet to be determined.
Countries listed under Annex Q shall adopt national
policies and measures necessary to “limit” and “reduce
emissions” by sources, while countries under Annex Q1 shall
undertake policies and measures for the “mitigation of
climate change.”
The alternative on budget periods includes provisions on
meeting emission limitation objectives, calculation of
emissions budgets and the procedure for establishing Annex
Q1 Party Commitments.
One of the alternatives addresses the need to establish
“equity” between the Parties. In this regard, it determines
that commitments will be “governed by the principle that
mitigation action by Parties listed in Annex Q shall result
in those Parties incurring equal percentage changes in per
capita economic welfare.”
Another alternative determines that the range within which
each Party’s differentiated QELROs would fall, would be
between a 30% reduction by 2010 from its 1990 level of
emissions and a 40% increase by 2010 over its 1990 level of
such emissions.
Other alternatives propose that Parties listed in Annex I
to the Convention shall individually or jointly cooperate
to ensure that their total aggregate annual/net emissions
of GHGs within a specific time period shall be a percentage
lower than their aggregate emissions for a previous time
period.
Over-achievement/Banking and Under-achievement/Borrowing:
These sections refer to how Parties can “bank” or “borrow”
shares of emissions according to the emissions budgets they
have been allocated within a specific time period. They
include a proposal on financial contributions as penalties
for not “maintaining emissions below the respective
effective emissions ceiling.”
Regional Economic Integration Organizations: This section
includes provisions to allow States that are members of a
regional economic integration organization to cooperate in
the implementation of their commitments.
Flexibility: This section includes subsections on emissions
trading, joint implementation and cooperative efforts by
Parties.
Emissions Trading: Three alternatives have been included in
this subsection. One establishes that commitments shall be
fulfilled individually and not through coordinated actions,
including emissions trading. Another states that trading in
emissions permits between “Annex Q” Parties shall take
place only after a satisfactory equitable initial
allocation of QELROs/emissions budgets has been agreed
upon. The third alternative determines that, except as
otherwise provided for, any “Annex Q” Party may transfer to
or acquire from any other “Annex Q” or “ Annex Q1” Party
any of its emissions allowed for a budget period for the
purpose of meeting its emissions limitation and reduction
commitments. Under this alternative, certain criteria and
restrictions have been introduced for the way emissions
trading will operate.
Joint Implementation: The first alternative under this
subsection reiterates that commitments shall be fulfilled
individually and not through coordinated actions. The
second alternative allows for each “Annex Q” or “Q1” Party
to fulfill part of their QELROs obligations to limit or
reduce anthropogenic emissions by all sources and enhance
anthropogenic removal by sinks of GHGs through joint
implementation of mitigation measures. Several options have
been included under this alternative on participation.
Cooperative Efforts by Interested Parties: This subsection
includes a provision according to which Annex I countries,
under certain conditions, may transfer to or receive from
any Party listed in Annex I to the Convention any of the
equivalent emissions reductions or sink enhancements
resulting from specific investments for the purpose of
meeting its obligations. It also states that any Party not
listed in Annex I to the Convention may, on a voluntary
basis, carry out projects that limit GHGs or remove GHGs by
sinks and reservoirs, in accordance with their development
priorities and strategies.
Possible impacts on developing countries of new commitments
in the new instrument/socio-economic injuries sustained by
developing countries: This section reiterates that in the
implementation of policies and measures, provisions in the
Convention pertaining to countries that are particularly
vulnerable to climate change (Art.4.8), shall be fully
taken into account. It also proposes the creation of a
concrete compensation mechanism for damages incurred by
developing countries arising from the implementation of
response measures. Several modalities for the compensation
mechanism have been contemplated, including coverage of
social and economic losses and the right to seek redress
for loss of income from export of fossil fuels.
Measurement, reporting and communication of information:
This section relates to the communication of information
related to the implementation of the protocol or legally
binding instrument that Parties shall undertake. It
encompasses provisions on the need for comparability,
consistency and transparency of information as well as
content and timing.
Review of information, implementation and compliance:
Provisions for the revision of information with a view to
assess compliance of obligations are in this section.
Modalities of reviews by expert teams or committees have
been contemplated, as well as frequency of the reviews, and
recommendations to be made based on outcomes of the
reviews.
Review of commitments: Seven alternatives appear under this
section, and focus on the modalities, frequency and
methodology for the review of the commitments. Options for
entities in charge of conducting the reviews are
incorporated (COP or Meeting of the Parties).
NON-GROUP ON POLICIES AND MEASURES
Mohamed Ould El Ghaouth (Mauritania) chaired the non-group
on policies and measures (P&Ms), which met twice during
AGBM-7. The discussion focused on whether P&Ms should be
legally binding and whether they should be differentiated.
Some delegations favored legally binding P&Ms and referred
to proposals on several annexes setting differentiated
policies and measures. A group of countries submitted a
non-paper on this issue. Other delegations favored a
flexible approach whereby countries should be able to set
their own P&Ms.
In the final Plenary, delegates received the revised draft
text produced by the non-group. The document refers to the
P&Ms that countries listed in an “Annex Q” shall adopt or
give high priority. Types of policies and measures to be
adopted by Annex Q countries are classified in lists: P&Ms
in List A would be adopted; those in List B would be
accorded high priority; and those in List C would be given
priority. The revised draft negotiating text includes
provisions according to which policies and measures applied
by Annex Q countries shall: address “all” GHGs, their
emissions by sources and removal by sinks and relevant
sectors; and contribute to stabilization of GHG
concentrations in the atmosphere. It also states that P&Ms
will have no adverse impacts on socio-economic conditions
of developing country Parties, especially those listed in
Article 4.8 of the Convention.
The draft text calls for: Annex Q countries to draw up
national plans for limiting and reducing anthropogenic
emissions by sources, and enhancing removal of GHGs by
sinks and reservoirs. It determines that national plans
shall be binding on the submitting Party. Another provision
states that “Parties will continue to retain maximum
flexibility deciding how best, based on their national
circumstances, they can reach emission limitation/reduction
objectives.”
In the draft, the sectors to be covered by P&Ms include
energy, transport, industry, agriculture, forestry and
waste management. Listings of specific P&Ms to be included
under List A are heavily bracketed. Among them are: the
abolition or phasing out of subsidies on fossil fuels “as
the most polluting source of energy;” increased taxation on
“oil/energy/CO2/GHGs;” the exemption of aviation fuel from
taxes; and energy-consumption labelling.
Language on establishing performance indicators to measure
the achievement of P&Ms and goals is also heavily
bracketed.
NON-GROUP ON ARTICLE 4.1 (COMMITMENTS)
The non-group on continuing to advance commitments under
Article 4.1 met three times under the chairmanship of Evans
King (Trinidad and Tobago). When King had to return to his
country, the non-group continued consultations under John
Ashe (Antigua and Barbuda).
Initially delegates agreed to negotiate on the basis of a
paper prepared by the Chair. Regarding chapeau paragraphs
on advancing the implementation of commitments, some non-
Annex I countries reportedly sought to include references
to the Berlin Mandate. They also supported referring to
FCCC elements, including a specific reference to the
introduction of no new non-Annex I commitments, but some
Annex I countries objected.
Some delegations were reluctant to include a reference to
the principle of common but differentiated
responsibilities. There were proposals to delete paragraphs
that conditioned advancement of commitments by non-Annex I
Parties on the provision of financial resources and
transfer of technology by developed countries.
A developed country put forward an alternative draft paper
that would commit Parties to advance implementation of
Article 4.1 and to strengthen collaboration.
Several paragraphs were deleted including those that called
on Parties to: recognize the progress that has been made on
Article 4.1; reaffirm their commitments to 4.1; and to
develop further international cooperation on the basis of
mutually beneficial incentive structures. One delegation
called for the preparation of national inventories on an
annual basis. Some non-Annex I countries opposed annual
inventories because of financial and technical limitations.
Many countries proposed the deletion of a paragraph calling
for cooperation to facilitate mitigation and adaptation to
climate change. Non-Annex I countries noted a strong
objection to the paragraph calling for specific definitions
on policies and measures.
Paragraphs noting the role that development and transfer of
technology should play and calling for entities entrusted
with operation of the financial mechanism to make available
financial assistance for the introduction of technology
were deleted.
On Saturday, 2 August, the Chair agreed to produce a new
text for further discussion containing alternatives for
articles lacking consensus. The draft text on advancing
implementation of existing commitments in Article 4.1 has a
chapeau and two alternatives. The chapeau language that the
“text is without prejudice to the provisions of Article
4.1” resulted from a debate over whether the draft should
include full references to FCCC articles. The note that
“all paragraphs remain open for negotiation and are not
agreed” appears on the text, most of which is heavily
bracketed.
The first alternative notes common but differentiated
responsibilities, capabilities, national and regional
development priorities, objectives and circumstances. It
states that Parties shall not introduce any new commitments
for non-Annex I Parties but reaffirm and continue to
advance existing ones.
The second alternative also pledges Parties to advance
Article 4.1 commitments and adds that they shall strengthen
collaboration through bilateral, multilateral and
Convention-based mechanisms. Text on existing commitments
by non-Annex I Parties makes implementation contingent upon
effective implementation of Annex I Parties’ commitments
related to financial resources and technology transfer. It
also calls economic development and poverty eradication the
“first and overriding priority” of developing country
Parties.
The financial mechanism, according to bracketed text in the
second alternative, is to provide necessary resources for
implementation of provisions in 10 areas based on sub-
articles of the FCCC: emissions inventories; national
programmes; technology; GHG sinks and reservoirs; climate
change impacts; climate change considerations in relevant
policies and actions; research and observation; information
exchange; education, training and public awareness; and
information related to implementation. The alternative
states that a fund or funds for provision of new and
additional financial resources, which are predictable and
adequate for developing countries implementation of
existing commitments, shall be set up under the Protocol.
The section on emissions inventories includes bracketed
references to submissions on “an annual basis” and “annual”
inventory data. The section on relevant policies and
actions includes two alternatives on indicators: one
calling for use of “national level” indicators and the
other suggesting use of relevant indicators to the extent
possible. The section on information related to
implementation contains three alternatives. One calls for
communication of information by the second COP of the
protocol. The second calls for in-depth reviews. The third
describes in depth reviews of “Annex I” or “Annex Q”
parties communications and consideration of “non-Annex I”
or “non-Annex Q” communications.
NON-GROUP ON INSTITUTIONS AND MECHANISMS
The non-group on institutions and mechanisms, chaired by
Takao Shibata (Japan), met four times during AGBM-7. The
non-group considered proposals from the AGBM Chair’s
compilation text on the Preamble, Institutions and
Mechanisms and Final Elements. Parties were invited to send
their comments to the Secretariat on a number of the Final
Elements that were not discussed.
In the final draft text, two proposals remain. The first
proposal, in brackets, notes that Parties have concluded
that paragraphs 2(a) and (b) of Article 4 are not adequate,
and that they adopted the Berlin Mandate to strengthen
Annex I commitments. It recognizes that the process will
not introduce any new commitments for non-Annex I Parties
but reaffirms Article 4.1 commitments, taking into account
Articles 4.3, 4.5, and 4.7.
A second and more extensive proposal includes bracketed
introductory paragraphs. One refers to the COP-1 decision
on the Berlin Mandate. The other paragraph includes twice-
bracketed references to “Article 7 paragraph 2” and “the
Provisions” of the Convention, taking into account that the
Protocol is a related legal instrument to the Convention.
Brackets also appear around the potential contribution of
the elimination of subsidies to the reduction of GHGs in
Annex I countries. The bracketed text notes that “therefore
highest priority should be given to those policies in
implementing their commitments.” The second proposal also
includes references to: likely impacts on developing
countries and fossil fuel producers; future re-examination
of global efforts to combat climate change by FCCC Parties;
indicators for limiting GHGs; a comprehensive approach;
voluntary measures by all Parties to set QELROS; joint
implementation; flexibility; a future concentration-based
approach to emission limitation goals; and effective
enforcement.
On institutions and mechanisms, there were lengthy
exchanges on the core issue of the relationship between the
COP/FCCC and any new instrument. While there was general
support for “institutional economy,” whereby the FCCC COP
would serve as the meeting of the Parties to the Protocol,
opposing views were put forward on what authority the COP
would have in regard to the Protocol. Some developing
country Parties were uneasy with the prospect of the
Protocol developing a life of its own and eventually
subsuming the FCCC. They argued for the right of all
Parties to the FCCC to amend the Protocol. Some developed
country Parties were concerned about the future influence
of non-ratifying Parties over the Protocol. One delegate
argued for a distinction between the legal and political
relationship between the COP and the Protocol. There was
general agreement on the possibility of a multilateral
consultative process but decisions about its relation to
the protocol were left open.
The draft text includes two proposals on the Conference of
the Parties. The first proposal asserts that the COP of the
Convention shall serve as the COP to the Protocol, on
condition that decisions on the Protocol should be taken
only by FCCC Parties also party to the Protocol, and that
any member of the FCCC COP Bureau who is not a Party to the
Protocol shall be substituted by a member elected by and
from Protocol Parties. A paragraph on voting also brackets
the type of majority vote and which Protocol Parties can
vote.
The second proposal establishes a Meeting of the Parties to
the Protocol (MOP). In it the FCCC Secretariat shall serve
as the Protocol secretariat, and the FCCC subsidiary bodies
shall also serve as the Protocol’s subsidiary bodies. The
section stating that the financial mechanism defined in the
FCCC shall serve as the mechanism for the Protocol contains
brackets around text stating that the mechanism shall be
guided by the Protocol’s COP when dealing with Protocol
activities.
There are four proposals on review of information and
review of implementation and compliance. Two of the
proposals refer to the involvement of expert teams in the
review of information. The third states that the MOP shall
receive, review and ensure publication of information. A
fourth, in brackets, states that the COP and its
appropriate subsidiary bodies shall receive national
communications and ensure their in-depth review. Bracketed
references to the multilateral consultative process include
the timing of the establishment or consideration of a MCP,
the MCP referred to in FCCC Article 13, and a reference to
promoting effective implementation.
There are three proposals in the Dispute Settlement
section. The first applies FCCC Article 14 to the Protocol.
A second proposal restricts initiation of disputes to
Parties other than regional economic integration
organizations. There are bracketed references to disputes
concerning implementation of commitments and any claim made
concerning economic injuries sustained by developing
countries, and to the Article on a compensation mechanism.
A reference to the submission of the dispute to the
International Court of Justice is also bracketed. The third
proposal on mandatory, binding dispute settlement has
brackets around a reference to “specific consequences
flowing from a violation.”
On final elements, a number of participants expressed the
view that certain proposals had been placed “on ice” until
encompassing issues at the AGBM had been cleared. In the
discussion on annexes, a number of developing and newly
industrialized country Parties sought to ensure that an
amendment procedure as rigorous as that of the FCCC would
govern the status of Parties included in the Protocol’s
annexes. On the relationship of the Protocol to other
agreements, some Parties opposed a proposal on derogation,
fearing that it would subordinate the Protocol to other
institutions, particularly the World Trade Organization
(WTO). Others sought to establish that the Protocol would
not prejudice the rights and obligations of WTO members. On
entry into force, two main positions emerged. Some
supported ratification based on the number of signatories.
Others supported a “weighted entry into force” approach,
linking ratification to the percentage contributions to GHG
emissions of ratifying Parties. There was some debate on
whether the percentage should refer to GHGs emitted by
Annex I Parties or to the global figure. Some Parties
argued for a proposal to ensure that any Party withdrawing
from the Protocol would continue to be liable for any claim
accruing against it as a result of economic injury
sustained by developing countries.
Three proposals on the Protocol’s Relationship to the
Convention remain in brackets. The first states that: the
FCCC COP must also review implementation of the Protocol;
Parties to the Protocol may seek guidance on matters of
duplication from the COP; and FCCC provisions relating to
protocols are to apply to the Protocol except where
otherwise stated. The second proposal states that Protocol
commitments do not cancel Annex I commitments for the
period before 2000. The third proposal states that the
instrument is a supplement to and integral part of the
FCCC.
In the section on the Adoption and amendment of annexes,
there are bracketed references to: a restriction on the
form (i.e., to lists) of annexes other than those adopted
with the instrument; voting majorities options for annexes;
and entry into force of amendments.
The entire section “Relationship to other agreements,”
which states that the instrument shall not derogate from
the rights and obligations of Parties under existing
international agreements, in particular, the agreement
establishing the WTO, is bracketed. A section on
Provisional application of the Protocol prior to its entry
into force also remains in brackets.
There are three proposals on entry into force. The
bracketed second proposal places entry into force after the
deposit of the “fiftieth” ratification, or the deposit by
which the total aggregate emissions for 1990 of “carbon
dioxide” and/or “GHGs” of the depositing Parties exceed
“three-fourths” of the total aggregate emissions of
“Parties listed in Annex 1 to the Convention” or “all
Parties of the Convention” for 1990, whichever is later.
The bracketed third proposal states that the instrument
shall enter into force on the 90th day after ratification
by all Annex I Parties and on the 90th day after
implementation of all Annex I FCCC commitments.
FINAL PLENARY
The Chair of the institutions and mechanisms non-group
introduced a new draft revised negotiating text and noted
that many brackets remain, but that delegates had succeeded
in streamlining and consolidating the text. He noted that
he will be available to receive comments on the text. The
Chair of the QELROs non-group introduced a draft revised
negotiating text and stated that he was pleased with the
constructive exchange of views between Parties. He noted
that the non-group had made progress in identifying
alternatives, but that the entire text remains in brackets
and will be considered at the next meeting in October. He
stated that the non-group did not have time to consider the
voluntary application of commitments by non-Annex I
Parties. He noted that a proposal calling for a section on
stabilization levels was submitted to the Chair of the AGBM
for consideration. On review of commitments, the Chair of
the non-group stated that because of uncertainty on how the
process will evolve, it was appropriate to keep the Chair’s
negotiating text.
He requested the Chair of the AGBM to consider how the
review of commitments will be dealt with in the future. On
measurement, reporting and review of information and
compliance, the Chair suggested that the review be
forwarded to the non-group on institutions and mechanism
for possible discussion. SAUDI ARABIA called on the Chair
to ensure that the draft includes a chapeau stating, inter
alia, that all paragraphs remain open for final negotiation
and that existing brackets do not prejudge the status of a
paragraph.
The AGBM Chair introduced the draft revised negotiating
text on policies and measures. He noted that there had been
considerable discussion on the option of no reference to
policies and measures versus the option of a detailed list
of common coordinated policies and measures. The Chair for
the non-group on Article 4.1 introduced a draft revised
negotiating text and noted that although nothing has been
agreed upon within the text, it offers a good starting
point for negotiations in October.
The G-77/CHINA reminded delegates that the Berlin Mandate
process should not introduce new commitments for non-Annex
I Parties, but advance the implementation of existing
commitments of all Parties. He stated that proposals for
new commitments have been used to obscure the lack of
political will of Annex I Parties. He noted that no
countries have proposed sharing the burden of the effects
of climate change despite the historical emissions of many
Annex I Parties. He stated that the biggest handicap for
non-Annex I countries is that they have no other forum for
discussions other than the negotiating sessions.
The US stated that it is committed to reach an agreement
that will take serious steps to limit GHG emissions. He
noted that paragraphs on the evolution of emission
limitation commitments were not discussed, and called for
their consideration at the next meeting. ZIMBABWE, on
behalf of the African Group, noted that African nations
will leave the meeting concerned about the pace of progress
while the negative effects of climate change continue. She
noted four principles that need to be clearly defined:
limitations of all GHGs; setting realistic per capita
emissions rights that consider population growth and
differentiation; reducing the emissions of Annex I Parties
while controlling growth of emissions of non-Annex I
Parties; and appropriate time frames that consider the
current impacts of climate change. The Chair called on
Annex I Parties to spare no effort in consulting among
themselves to find a compromise during the intersessional
period. KENYA called for a strong protocol or another legal
instrument. SAUDI ARABIA proposed that Annex I Parties
identify the specific policies and measures that they
intend to adopt to achieve their QELROs, and provide an
analysis of the environmental, social and economic effects
of the proposals on non-Annex I Parties. GHANA noted that
many African countries are implementing sustainable
development action plans but that the efforts are being
undermined by climate change. He recognized the importance
of non-Annex I Party commitments and stated that the use of
differentiation for QELROs is both fair and reasonable.
LUXEMBOURG, on behalf of the EU, noted the flexibility and
contribution that the EU has shown in its position and
noted the concerns expressed by the G-77/CHINA.
The Chair noted that all the proposals in the negotiating
text (FCCC/AGBM/1997/3/Add.1 and MISC. 1/Add. 2, 3, 4, and
5) remained on the table and that not all elements of the
negotiating text had been taken up at AGBM-7. The draft
texts presented by the Chairs as outcomes from their non-
groups at AGBM-7 would be annexed to the report of the
Session in the same way that SBI had annexed documents on
non-Annex I communications and the review of the GEF.
Encouraged by Parties’ remarks, the Chair added that he
would continue with consultations during the intersessional
period and prepare a Chair’s text for AGBM-8, which would
serve as the focus of the work.
The Chair noted that the AGBM would end with the final
session in October. After that all that would remain will
be to present a report to COP-3. He recalled his opening
statement to the Plenary in which he had emphasized the
need for proposals for quantitative targets for QELROS and
re-stated that such targets remained the goal. He noted
that with those numbers most other points would fall into
place and stated that nobody should underestimate the
obstacles to be overcome during AGBM-8. He urged Parties to
come to AGBM-8 determined to advance consensus.
On the report of the meeting, the Chair said the
annotations to the Agenda would state that the texts
produced by non-groups would be issued as addenda to the
report. The report itself would be largely procedural. He
invited Parties to authorize the Rapporteur to complete the
report after the session in cooperation with the Chair and
the Secretariat. Responding to questions by SAUDI ARABIA,
the Chair said the Saudi invitation to Annex I countries to
provide information on impacts would form part of the
conclusions in the report. The Chair noted that the Berlin
Mandate may actually extend until COP-3, and that he would
prepare his Chair’s text as soon as he could. The Session
was adjourned.
SUBSIDIARY BODY FOR IMPLEMENTATION
On 28 July, Chair Mohamed Ould El Ghaouth (Mauritania)
convened SBI-6. He reminded delegates that the SBI would
not meet at COP-3 and must finalize a number of
recommendations at this session and at SBI-7 in October. On
the adoption of the agenda (FCCC/SBI/1997/7), he invited
the Philippines to ask colleagues if they were prepared for
a preliminary exchange of views on proposals for amendments
to the FCCC and its annexes (FCCC/SBI/1997/11). If not, the
proposals would go directly to COP-3. SAUDI ARABIA,
supported by KUWAIT, sought deletion of an agenda item on
matters arising from UNGASS. He said there was little of
substance from UNGASS to send to COP-3. The Chair said the
item was simply for information.
Divisions of Labor between SBI and SBSTA: On 28 July,
delegates considered document (FCCC/SB/1997/2) and agreed
that a joint SBI/SBSTA contact group, chaired by Amb. Mark
Hambley (US) and José Romero (Switzerland) would consider
the issue. The group met throughout the week and on 4
August, an informal SBI meeting approved the contact
group’s draft decision. On 5 August, SBI and SBSTA both
decided to recommend the draft decision for adoption by
COP-3.
The draft decision outlines a general approach, under which
one of the bodies will take the overall responsibility in
considering an issue and will request specific inputs from
the other body if necessary. Where overall responsibility
is not assigned, agendas should be organized to avoid SBSTA
and SBI dealing with such issues in parallel. Where this is
not possible consideration should be given to holding ad
hoc joint sessions.
SBI will have responsibility for developing guidelines on
the processes for consideration of national communications
and other relevant documentation. SBSTA, in cooperation
with SBI, shall have responsibility for developing
guidelines for the provision of comparable information
including all related methodological issues, and shall
consider national communications, such as technical papers,
with the aim of, inter alia, verifying methodologies used.
SBI will, with input from SBSTA, have responsibility for
assisting the COP in the assessment and review of the
effective implementation of the Convention with respect to
the development and transfer of technology. As stipulated
by the Convention, the SBSTA shall have responsibility for
providing advice on all scientific, technological and
methodological aspects.
SBI will have overall responsibility for all policy
questions and relevant inputs related to issues dealing
with NGO consultations, as appropriate. Should SBSTA or any
other subsidiary body conclude that NGOs could provide
relevant input on an item under consideration, that body
could seek and consider such inputs. Issues involving
provisional accreditation related to individual NGOs will
be the responsibility of the relevant body.
On AIJ, SBSTA will have the responsibility for developing
the framework for reporting, including consideration of
scientific, technical and methodological aspects of the
reports. SBSTA will also prepare reports on activities for
the COP. SBI will have the responsibility for assisting the
COP with the review of the progress of AIJ under the pilot
phase, on the basis of inputs from SBSTA.
SBSTA will have overall responsibility for issues related
to research and systematic observation and shall play a
coordinating role in such activities related to
implementation. SBSTA will also have overall responsibility
for providing advice on education, training, public
awareness programmes and public access to information.
Annex I Communications: On 30 July, the Secretariat
introduced documents including: a tentative schedule of the
in-depth review of the second national communications of
Annex I Parties (FCCC/SB/1997/5) in advance of preparations
of a final schedule at SBI-7; an update on trends in past
GHG emissions and future projections (FCCC/SB/1997/6); and
a status report on a review of the first national
communications (FCCC/SB/1997/INF.3) due for completion by
SBI-7. The Secretariat noted the slow pace of submission of
second national communications that were due in April this
year. The EU called on Parties to contribute to a
successful conclusion of the communications process. CHINA
asked the Secretariat to include statements on the
difficulties Annex I Parties have experienced in meeting
their commitments.
In the report of the meeting, delegates took note of the
Secretariat’s progress report and requested a report on
experiences with the review process of the first national
communications for consideration at SBI-7.
Draft conclusions on Annex I communications
(FCCC/SBI/1997/CRP.5) were also adopted. They state, inter
alia, that the Secretariat should submit a report at SBI-7
on the progress of Annex I Parties “individually or
jointly” in returning to their 1990 levels of GHG
emissions. The US noted that their acceptance of
“individually or jointly” did not prejudice its position on
other texts under negotiation. The PHILIPPINES called for
the inclusion of a specific reference to Article 4.2 (b).
SBI also expressed concern at the late submission of
communications by many Annex I Parties and took note of the
report on the informal workshop on Annex I communications.
Annex II Parties were requested to provide information in
accordance with Article 12.3, which calls for information
on financial resources, adaptation assistance and
technology transfer.
Non-Annex I Communications: On 29 July, the Secretariat
presented documents on Secretariat activities regarding
financial and technical support (FCCC/SBI/1997/9) and on
submission of initial national communications
(FCCC/SBI/1997/13). She noted that Argentina and Jordan
have submitted national communications and 40 other non-
Annex I Parties had indicated they would do so by 2000.
Luxembourg, on behalf of the EU, said the review process
for non-Annex I communications should begin as soon as
possible. CANADA urged acceleration of non-Annex I
communications. She supported a process for consideration
of non-Annex I communications as a way of advancing
commitments under Article 4.1, including guidelines and
country visits. AUSTRALIA emphasized the review component
as an integral part of the process, noting that country
visits with participation by non-Annex I experts were
helpful in the Annex I Parties process.
ARGENTINA said consideration of non-Annex I communications
should be facilitative, not confrontational, and that he
had no problem with in-depth studies of non-Annex I
communications. TANZANIA, on behalf of the G-77/CHINA,
supported by AUSTRALIA and CUBA, said the discussion of
Annex I and non-Annex I communications should be based on
differentiation. CHINA and MALAYSIA recommended an overall
assessment rather than individual review, noting that
initial non-Annex I Parties’ communications may not be as
consistent or complete as Annex I Parties’. The US said
consideration of non-Annex I Parties’ commitments need not
be as detailed nor as extensive as that for Annex I
Parties. She said compilation and synthesis of non-Annex I
communications did not require the same schedule or
frequency but could contribute to a comprehensive synthesis
report, which could identify gaps or inconsistencies in
non-Annex I communications.
The PHILIPPINES said a GHG abatement strategy is beyond
developing country commitments and should not be mentioned
except as a possible voluntary activity. With CHINA, INDIA,
MALAYSIA and COLOMBIA, she emphasized that non-Annex I
communications are governed only by FCCC provisions and the
relevant COP-2 decisions. ZIMBABWE, CUBA and others said
provision of initial communications is linked to provision
of funds. SAUDI ARABIA said the financial support must be
sustainable and linked to capacity building.
The REPUBLIC OF KOREA and MALAYSIA underscored varying
country conditions and capacities. BANGLADESH and BURKINA
FASO supported regional workshops. JAPAN said it is
strengthening training courses for developing country
experts to increase capacity. SENEGAL promised to submit
its communication by the Kyoto meeting. The Chair suggested
forming a contact group on this issue to be led by the US
and Malaysia.
The contact group met a number of times but did not reach
consensus. In final Plenary, CHINA reported on discussions
in the contact group, highlighting financial and technical
difficulties and the problems posed for consideration of
communications given the staggered submission schedule.
Delegates agreed that deliberations will continue at SBI-7
and adopted the contact group’s draft conclusions. Two
annexes to the conclusions contain draft proposals from the
G-77/CHINA and the US. Under the G-77/CHINA proposal, the
COP would decide to: consider the overall aggregate effects
of measures taken pursuant to FCCC; compile a list of
projects submitted by non-Annex I Parties for financing and
seek funding from the financial mechanism; and consider the
non-Annex I communications in a facilitative, non-
confrontational, open and transparent manner. SBI would
conduct initial consideration of the communications and
submit a synthesis report to the COP on the overall
aggregate effects of measures taken pursuant to the FCCC.
The Secretariat was requested to prepare a report on the
guidelines for the preparation of initial communications
with a view to enhancing compatibility.
Under the US draft decision, the COP would decide that
consideration of initial non-Annex I communications will
include, inter alia, the tasks of assessing quantitative
and qualitative information for consistency with applicable
guidelines and preparing a report on the application of
guidelines. The draft decision also requests that the
Secretariat: select experts from names nominated by Parties
to assist in the consideration process; compile and
synthesize information contained in individual national
communications; compile a compendium of projects and
related information submitted by non-Annex I Parties;
arrange regional expert workshops; and note instances where
in-country expert visits would be beneficial and make
appropriate arrangements.
Financial Mechanism: On 29 July, the Secretariat summarized
the compilation of the views submitted by Parties
(FCCC/SBI/1997/MISC.3) and the synthesis report
(FCCC/SBI/1997/8). The Chair requested comments on the
financial mechanism, and noted that in the first GEF
replenishment period no climate change related activities
were denied funding. SAUDI ARABIA noted that the GEF was
sufficient for the interim period, but was outdated. Along
with KOREA, IRAN and the G-77/CHINA, he called for
additional time to consider the financial mechanism.
KUWAIT, NIGERIA and SAUDI ARABIA suggested that Parties
consider other options for a financial mechanism. CHINA
called for an increase in the replenishment funds, and
requested that additional funds be allocated for technology
transfer. MALAYSIA noted that two of its project proposals
have been turned down by the GEF.
The EU stated that the report presented by the Secretariat
provided sufficient basis to support replenishment, and
suggested that the GEF be appointed the permanent operating
entity of the financial mechanism. AUSTRALIA, the US,
CANADA, JAPAN and the UK noted the success of the GEF and
supported making the GEF the permanent mechanism at COP-3.
The UK stated that it is committed to the GEF and prepared
to make substantial contributions. The GEF welcomed the
review of the financial mechanism and noted that it has
provided US$4 billion in operational support for climate
change projects. The G-77/CHINA called for all sources of
information to be carefully examined, and noted that he was
willing to submit a draft decision on the review process. A
contact group chaired by John Ashe (Antigua and Barbuda)
was established to consider the issue.
The contact group met throughout the week and on 31 July
produced a text that contained bracketed references noting
the work done by GEF since its inception and the initial
concerns raised by some non-Annex I Parties. In a section
welcoming the outcome of UNGASS, the text contains
bracketed references recognizing that implementation of
commitments made under international environmental treaties
can be promoted by secure, sustained and predictable
financial support, sufficient institutional capacity, human
resources and adequate access to technology.
Under a bracketed option, the GEF would be appointed the
financial mechanism of the Convention and SBI would
initiate arrangements for Parties to further consider the
GEF’s activities, including a method for Parties to raise
performance issues. Under a bracketed alternative, the GEF
would continue as the financial mechanism on an interim
basis pending a review by COP-4.
The text was adopted in the report of the meeting. SBI also
decided to defer consideration of this issue until its next
session and urged all Parties to submit their views on the
financial mechanism no later than 8 September. A number of
delegates noted concern with the date of 8 September and
stated that they had agreed to submit the reports by 25
September to give more time for consideration of the issue.
A compromise date of 15 September was agreed upon.
Administrative and Financial Matters: On 28 July, the FCCC
Executive Secretary introduced documentation on the
programme budget for the years 1998-1999 (FCCC/SBI/1997/10,
INF.1, and INF.2). He drew attention to an informal
document on the status of payments to the FCCC core budget
and said the cash flow situation continued to warrant
concern. He said the level of initial budget estimates had
been revised downwards but would remain above the 1997
level.
He also discussed a proposal to maintain a post-Kyoto
contingency fund for the management of any unanticipated
process to emerge from COP-3. On the Participation Fund, he
warned that some linkage might be introduced between
Parties’ applications for funding and the status of their
contributions.
The EU introduced a formal statement on the programme
budget for 1998-1999, noting continuing concern at the
total amount of the budget proposals presented by the
Secretariat and a proposed 50% increase overall. The EU
proposed a contact group to take the work on the budget
forward.
Delegates at an informal budget discussion that afternoon
differed on the implications of budgetary decisions for
AGBM and COP-3 deliberations. Some supported including
funds for a possible post-Kyoto process within a proposed
contingency budget or even including those funds in the
FCCC’s core budget, while others said the budget should not
prejudge whether coming negotiations will establish such a
process. The need for separately listing funds for Annex I
and non-Annex II Parties’ implementation was also
questioned, but a number of delegations said the
distinction in Parties’ responsibilities should not be
eliminated in the budget. Several delegations also
expressed concerns about the apparent increase in staff and
overall budget amount compared to 1997 figures. They
requested further information on these issues from the
Secretariat.
In the final Plenary, the Chair presented the draft
conclusions on the programme budget for 1998-1999 and noted
that they will be included in a formal annex. The delegates
adopted the annex. The EU noted that a 15% increase over
two years in the budget shows the importance that the EU
attaches to the implementation and further development of
the Convention. The Executive Secretary expressed his
appreciation for early closure on this issue and noted that
five of the 10 largest contributions for the year have
still not been received.
Arrangements for Intergovernmental Meetings: On 29 July,
delegates considered document FCCC/SBI/1997/11. On
arrangements for COP-3, the G-77/CHINA, supported by
NIGERIA, VENEZUELA, SAUDI ARABIA, KUWAIT, CHINA, MALI,
IRAN, KOREA, CENTRAL AFRICAN REPUBLIC, COLOMBIA and INDIA
said the proposed ministerial segment must include all
heads of delegations and their advisors, not just
ministers. Some delegations said it should be renamed a
“high level” segment and any text for discussion must be
distributed well in advance of the ministerial roundtable.
On COP-3 agenda, the G-77/CHINA supported holding COP-4 in
1998. The EU and AUSTRALIA preferred scheduling COP-4 in
early 1999. Delegates expressed varying opinions as to the
value of a ministerial segment. NIGERIA, CHINA and SAUDI
ARABIA cautioned against including selected partner
organizations and NGOs in the ministerial roundtable and
questioned who would make the selections. JAPAN said NGOs
should be excluded from the ministerial segment given its
highly political nature.
On 30 July, the SBI Chair reported that there was no
agreement on a draft decision on preparations for COP-3 and
COP-4 prepared by the G-77/CHINA, which will include the
second review of Annex I Party commitments. The FCCC calls
for the second review no later than 31 December 1998. The
Chair appealed for flexibility from the G-77/CHINA, which
had experienced difficulties with a proposal for a date for
COP-4. The Chairs of the G-77/CHINA and the EU agreed to
consult with the SBI Chair on arrangements for COP-3 and
COP-4.
In an informal meeting on 1 August, delegates continued to
debate draft conclusions on arrangements for COP-3,
particularly with regard to a proposal that the Secretariat
make all necessary preparations for COP-3 to conduct the
second review of the adequacy of Article 4.2 (a) and (b)
and the review of Annexes I and II. Debate also centered on
text describing the dates of the high-level segment and
noting that the COP President will promote informal
dialogue among Ministers and Heads of delegations.
In final Plenary, delegates accepted draft conclusions
that, inter alia, request the Secretariat to make all
necessary preparations for COP-3 to consider the second
review of the adequacy of Article 4.2 (a) and (b) and that
COP-3 place on the agenda for COP-4 the second review of
those articles. A request for the Secretariat to make
preparations for the review of Annexes I and II was
replaced with a recommendation that COP-3 undertake a
review of available information with a view to taking
decisions regarding amendments to Annexes I and II.
The conclusions also recommend that a High Level Segment of
Ministers and other Heads of Delegations at COP-3 take
place from 8-10 December. Following a G-77/CHINA request, a
paragraph regarding an informal dialogue among Ministers
and other Heads of Delegations was deleted.
Regarding arrangements for COP-4, the SBI recommended that
COP-4 be held in November 1998. The venue will be Bonn
unless a proposal by Party to host the COP is received.
NGO Consultation Mechanisms: On 29 July, SBI considered
mechanisms for consultation with NGOs. The Secretariat
introduced two documents (FCCC/SBI/1997/14 and Add.1).
Regarding access by NGOs, one document contains proposals
on the improvement of existing mechanisms and the
establishment of new ones, including a Business
Consultative Mechanism (BCM). The other document (Add.1),
contains additional reflections by the Secretariat. A
representative of public utilities commissions and the
Climate Action Network agreed with increased transparency
in the accreditation and registration process. A speaker
representing business and industry NGOs supported the
concept of a BCM, and stressed the need to improve current
communications mechanisms. The International Council for
Local Environmental Initiatives (ICLEI) noted that a report
will be submitted to the COP and its subsidiary bodies
providing data on local government initiatives to reduce
GHGs. The US, MALAYSIA, EGYPT, SENEGAL, the EU, CANADA,
INDONESIA, AUSTRALIA, BENIN and VENEZUELA welcomed
participation of the NGOs in the Convention. MALAYSIA and
BENIN stated that NGOs who are not supportive of the
Convention process should not be allowed to attend.
INDONESIA called for the mechanism for consultation to be
broadened to include local government and business NGOs.
CANADA, AUSTRALIA and VENEZUELA noted the financial
constraints of the Secretariat. CANADA suggested improving
existing bodies and mechanisms. The Chair called on Parties
to submit comments and noted that the issue will be taken
up again at SBI-7.
In final Plenary, SBI took note of the Secretariat’s
documents on mechanisms for consultations with non-
governmental organizations. The Chair noted that a contact
group would be created at SBI-7 for consideration of this
item. The SBI also urged all Parties to submit their views
on this item by 25 August.
Other Issues: On 30 July, SBI decided to refer its agenda
item on development and transfer of technology to SBSTA. In
final Plenary, Parties adopted ad referendum draft
conclusions on reducing the volume of documentation and the
calendar of meetings (FCCC/SBI/1997/11). SBI also took note
of the information provided by the Secretariat regarding
UNGASS.
Report of the Meeting: In final Plenary on 5 August, the
Chair noted that most decisions by the contact groups were
outlined in the draft report (FCCC/SBI/1997/L.2). Delegates
reviewed the report of the meeting and adopted it as
amended. The Chair adjourned the meeting at approximately
11:30 am.
SUBSIDIARY BODY FOR SCIENTIFIC
AND TECHNOLOGICAL ADVICE
SBSTA Chair Tibor Faragó (Hungary) opened SBSTA-6 on 28
July and highlighted the interest in enhancing commitments
under the FCCC as expressed at UNGASS. He noted that
Burundi had recently become an FCCC Party and said the
Ukraine and Singapore would soon follow. FCCC Executive
Secretary Michael Zammit-Cutajar noted that while much
attention has focused on the AGBM, the other subsidiary
bodies would also make positive contributions to COP-3. He
expressed concern at the slow pace of submission of
national communications, which are a basic commitment and
affect the Secretariat’s ability to compile and synthesize
information.
On the adoption of the agenda, the G-77/CHINA, reserved its
position on addressing methodological issues related to
joint implementation as a separate issue. CHINA proposed
bracketing the item. The US requested an explanation of
this action. The Chair proposed including this item under
the general discussion on activities implemented jointly.
Delegates agreed to consider the item under the discussion
on methodological issues.
On the election of officers, Soobaraj Sok Appadu
(Mauritius) was elected Vice-Chair and Alvaro Jose
Rodriguez Gómez (Colombia) as Rapporteur. On the
organization of work, the Chair proposed establishing
informal groups to consider the division of labor between
SBSTA and SBI. He also proposed establishing a group on
methodological issues, to be chaired by Harald Dovland
(Norway) and SBSTA Vice-Chair Appadu. Thirty-four
delegations expressed interest in participating.
Division of Labor: On 28 July, delegates considered the
document on division of labor (FCCC/SB/1997/2). The
document proposes, inter alia, that only one subsidiary
body would address any particular issue and, if necessary,
the other body would consider certain aspects of the issue.
LUXEMBOURG, on behalf of the EU, along with JAPAN,
supported the proposed approach and, with SWITERLAND,
emphasized the need for education and public awareness.
JAPAN noted that the division of labor for national
communications and AIJ needs clarification. The US noted
that SBSTA should only refine unclear areas rather than
redefine decisions.
Some delegations, including MALAYSIA, SAUDI ARABIA and IRAN
emphasized the importance of technology transfer to
developing countries and the need for more detailed
discussions. Some disagreed with the document’s proposal
that SBI only address technology transfer “at some point in
the future.” CANADA noted that some elements are
appropriate to SBSTA’s expertise, while others fall outside
that, such as intellectual property rights, financial
mechanisms and the role of the private sector.
Delegates convened a joint informal group to produce draft
conclusions, which was chaired by Amb. Mark Hambley (US)
and José Romero (Switzerland). The group held consultations
throughout the week and presented its conclusions on 6
August. The same conclusions had been presented and adopted
by SBI (see above).
Methodological Issues: On 28 July, the Chair opened
discussion on methodological issues and financing by noting
that an informal group, chaired by Harald Dovland (Norway),
would also be considering the issue. He urged delegates to
limit their discussion to general comments on the documents
(FCCC/SB/1997/INF.2, FCCC/SBI/1997/10 and
FCCC/SB/1997/INF.1) and leave detailed discourse for the
informal discussions. The EU, the US and JAPAN stated that
the documents were reasonable and useful. However, each
group noted reservations and agreed to participate in
informal discussions. The EU and the US questioned how
funding should be allocated to different bodies. MALAYSIA
noted the importance of methodological issues and called
for an increase in the budget. CHINA called for the work to
be implemented on a regional basis and stressed that this
should be a priority task.
On 29 July, an informal group on methodological issues
heard a presentation by the Secretariat on its
Methodological Work Programme. On 30 July, the
methodological group reported to Plenary that the group had
found little overlap between the work of the Secretariat
and other international organizations. SAUDI ARABIA
objected to the paper to be presented by the methodological
group and stated that the Secretariat should not be given
additional responsibility. He called for a new working
group to discuss Intergovernmental Technical Advisory
Panels (ITAPs) and reminded the Chair of the G-77/CHINA’s
proposal on ITAPs.
On 31 July, the Chair of the contact group on methodologies
presented its conclusions in Plenary. The G-77/CHINA
requested more time to consider this paper before approval.
ZIMBABWE noted that there was limited participation from
non-Annex I countries. The methodologies contact group
reconvened for further consultations.
On 5 August, the revised draft conclusions of methodologies
group were presented in the revised report of SBSTA-6.
Regarding the work programme to be conducted by the
Secretariat, SBSTA decided: to give highest priority to
activities relating to methods for GHG inventories; high
priority to projections of GHG emissions and sinks; and
priority to methods for evaluating and monitoring the
effectiveness of specific policies and measures for
assessing adaptation strategies and technologies.
The revised conclusions, inter alia: request the
Secretariat to prepare a progress report on the work
programme on methodologies; note that SBSTA-7 will begin
consideration of appropriate ways to provide terms of
reference for expert contributions and the review of
technical documents; and provide an opportunity for
submitting initial comments on priority areas and options
for work on projections by 20 January 1998. The conclusions
also contain an indicative budget for the methodological
work programme.
On 28 July, delegates considered methodological issues
related to crediting under joint implementation. The US and
the EU supported immediate discussion of this matter and
said that joint implementation would be limited without
resolving the issue of credits. The G-77/CHINA and the
RUSSIAN FEDERATION noted that it was premature to talk
about crediting. They emphasized that joint implementation
is still in its pilot phase with few projects and few
countries involved. NORWAY emphasized that the issue of
crediting is complex and addressing methodology alone may
not be beneficial. He called for a broad examination of the
issue before the specifics of methodology are considered.
The Chair suggested postponing discussion of crediting
until early next year in order to await the political
deliberations that will take place at AGBM. CANADA noted
that each COP is responsible for the review of pilot
projects and was concerned that the issue of crediting was
being ignored.
The Chair called on the US, NORWAY, CANADA and CHINA to
draft a compromise text for consideration in Plenary. On 30
July, the US reported that this small informal group had
not produced agreed text and would continue consultations
until the final SBSTA meeting. On 5 August, CHINA reported
that the group had still not reached agreement. The Chair
proposed that the report of the meeting state that SBSTA
had considered the issue and decided to defer consideration
to a future session. CHINA proposed deleting the reference
to future consideration. The PHILIPPINES asked if the issue
would again be considered a separate agenda item or
together with methodological issues. The US noted the need
for further discussions and that the clearly divergent
views were evidenced by the fact that there are no
conclusions on this matter. Delegates agreed to consider
the issue at a future session.
Cooperation with International Organizations: On 30 July,
delegates considered document FCCC/SBSTA/1997/MISC.4. The
Chair noted that there was little documentation and
encouraged intergovernmental and international
organizations to brief the delegates on their activities.
The International Oceanographic Commission (IOC) cited the
need for modernizing global sea level observations and
called for assistance from international bodies. The
Scientific and Technical Advisory Panel (STAP) to the
Global Environment Facility (GEF) summarized its activities
and workshops on climate change and noted its cooperation
with other international organizations. The World
Meteorological Organization (WMO) reported on the
development of the Climate Agenda and noted that a report
will be submitted to COP-3. The United Nations Environment
Programme (UNEP) stated the importance of equity in
methodological issues and called for a resolution. He noted
the advantages gained by sharing of information between
groups interested in activities implemented jointly (AIJ),
but cautioned that AIJ could weaken the development of
local technologies.
The IPCC stated that the Third Assessment Report (TAR) is
scheduled for completion by the end of 2000. In addition to
physical, chemical and ecological processes, the TAR will
integrate natural and social sciences and address sectoral
issues and regional perspectives. The IPCC will also
produce a “policy relevant” synthesis report.
LUXEMBOURG, on behalf of the EU, highlighted its submission
containing questions from policy makers, which focuses,
inter alia, on progress in detecting change, non-
intervention scenarios and possible policy combinations.
SWITZERLAND noted the importance of disseminating the TAR
results in all UN languages and ensuring adequate resources
for the IPCC secretariat.
CHINA said the TAR should reflect the implementation of
Articles 4.2(a) and (b), and with the US, called for
briefings on the consultations of the Joint Working Group
of the FCCC and IPCC officers. ZIMBABWE, on behalf of the
African Group, as well as CUBA and ZAMBIA, sought stronger
national observation and research systems. She also urged
the IPCC to produce simplified summaries of regional impact
studies and regretted that the GEF did not support UNEP’s
proposed climate awareness programme.
The MARSHALL ISLANDS stated that the IPCC should strive for
better information on possible scenarios, such as sea-level
rise and socio-economic impacts resulting from inaction.
Any steps towards a “user friendly” synthesis report would
assist political leaders. SAMOA cited the fact that some
regions do not have experts in this field as proof of the
need to build capacity. PERU called for work on tropical
forest methodology and the ocean carbon cycle according to
region.
In the report of the meeting, delegates noted the
information provided by the various international
organizations and requested that the Secretariat organize
an informal meeting at SBSTA-7 to discuss key issues to be
addressed in the TAR. Following a US proposal, the
conclusions call upon Parties to work through other
relevant organizations, including the International Civil
Aviation Organization (ICAO) and the International Maritime
Organization (IMO).
National Communications: On 28 July, the Secretariat
introduced documents on communications from Annex I Parties
(FCCC/SB/1997/5) and inventory and projection data
(FCCC/SB/1997/6), which delegates noted without discussion.
On communications from non-Annex I Parties, delegates had
before them documents (FCCC/SBI/1997/9 and
FCCC/SBI/1997/13) and agreed to await the outcome of the
SBI deliberations.
Technology Transfer: On 30 July, the Chair invited comment
on a progress report (FCCC/SB/1997/3), an update on the
report (FCCC/SB/1997/4) and a technical paper on trends and
conditions employed by multilateral lending institutions
(FCCC/TP/1997/1). TANZANIA, on behalf of the G-77/CHINA,
said technology transfer remains an essential component and
priority element of FCCC implementation. SBSTA should
continue to establish expert groups on specific issues
using the roster of experts. ZIMBABWE, on behalf of the
African Group, demanded a reopening of the question of
ITAPs, which could be a first step toward a clearinghouse
mechanism. CHINA said SBSTA should set up ITAPs to
facilitate technology transfer.
The US and the EU suggested that action on ITAPs await a
planned review of the roster at the next SBSTA. JAPAN said
SBSTA should concentrate on updating the roster and should
carefully consider qualifications for ITAPs. MALAYSIA said
ITAPs and the roster should be enhanced to draw expertise
from within governments.
The US said governments’ role in technology transfer is to
encourage technology diffusion and remove market barriers.
The focus should be on informing developing country Parties
of channels and conditions for financing. CANADA stated
that the private sector is the preferred vehicle for
technology transfer, with governments playing a
facilitating role. The EU noted the increasing significance
of private sector financial flows and said work related to
public sector financial flows should focus on energy and
transport. UZBEKISTAN suggested an international technology
exchange advisory group.
The draft conclusions on transfer of technologies accepted
on 5 August, state that SBSTA took note of the
Secretariat’s technical and progress reports and supported
the Secretariat’s plans to prepare reports on the role of
the private sector and on barriers and enabling activities
of governments related to technology transfer. Under the
draft conclusions, SBSTA encouraged the Secretariat to
extend its cooperation with other organizations with the
aim of, inter alia, improving the availability of climate
relevant data. The draft conclusions also state that SBSTA
discussed ITAPs and noted that the Secretariat has been
requested to prepare a report on its experience using the
roster of experts. It recalled that the subject of ITAPs,
including their possible establishment, would be considered
by SBSTA-7. Parties may submit proposals on the issue until
31 August 1997. SBSTA welcomed the Secretariat’s use of the
roster in three expert meetings on technology and
technology transfer issues and recalled its request to
Parties to nominate experts for the roster.
Activities Implemented Jointly: On 28 July, delegates
discussed activities implemented jointly (AIJ) under the
pilot phase in Plenary. The Secretariat introduced document
FCCC/SBSTA/1997/INF.2, which contains a list of projects
that have been accepted, approved or endorsed by the
designated national authorities.
The EU called for the establishment of a credible baseline
that would reflect what would have happened in the absence
of an AIJ project. The calculation of the benefits should
be transparent and include only those leading to genuine
GHG reductions. She noted that further work was required on
technology-specific baselines and third party verification.
The US noted that a considerable amount of progress on
practical options can be identified, and highlighted
several aspects of criteria for assessing AIJ, such as
monitoring and verifying results, quantification of project
costs and measuring emission benefits. He underscored the
need to examine links between these issues and credits. The
US and CANADA said the Secretariat’s forthcoming synthesis
document should begin to draw conclusions from AIJ
projects. NORWAY highlighted national experience in AIJ and
noted efforts to develop a portfolio of projects with a
view to balancing sectors and technologies. COSTA RICA said
the willingness to pay for GHG reductions through AIJ is
linked to financing and stressed the need for crediting.
ZIMBABWE, CHINA, KUWAIT and MALAYSIA cautioned against
forming premature conclusions on AIJ based on the pilot
phase. ZIMBABWE and CHINA said it would not be possible to
assess the effectiveness of AIJ by 2000. SAUDI ARABIA said
many activities had been initiated to reaffirm the idea of
AIJ and noted that project approval by the host government
is not a sign of success because some countries lack the
capacity to judge benefits. SAMOA noted that only 12
Parties, two from Annex I, were currently involved in AIJ
activities. While significant opportunities for AIJ exist
worldwide, few countries in the Asia-Pacific region have an
understanding of this issue.
In the report of the meeting, SBSTA took note with
appreciation of the Secretariat’s information on AIJ and
the ongoing work in the field.
Report of the session: On 30 July, Rapporteur Alvaro J.
Rodriguez (Colombia) introduced the draft “skeleton” report
of SBSTA (FCCC/SBSTA/1997/CRP.2), which delegates amended
and adopted. On 5 August, delegates discussed the remaining
issues on their agenda, considered a revised draft report
of the meeting (FCCC/SBSTA/1997/L.4), and heard a
presentation on the SBI workshop on Annex I communications.
SBSTA took note of the methodological issues outlined in
the workshop report. Delegates adopted the report, as
amended, and the Chair adjourned the meeting at 5:00 pm.
AD HOC GROUP ON ARTICLE 13
On 28 July, Chair Patrick Széll (UK) opened the fifth
session of the Ad Hoc Group on Article 13 (AG13-5), the
last AG13 meeting before COP3. He recalled that at AG13-4
some progress had been made, mainly due to the decision
that AG13 should not aim to conclude its work before COP-4,
pending a decision by the AGBM on the nature of the
compliance regime.
The Chair called attention to the draft Multilateral
Consultative Process (MCP) (FCCC/AG13/1997/2, Annex II)
containing proposals on functions and procedures with a
number of bracketed references. He indicated that
additional submissions by Switzerland and Uzbekistan had
been circulated (FCCC/AG13/1 997/Misc.2).
The Chair requested that delegations circulate amendments
on the draft MCP immediately to allow for their
consideration overnight. The Chair also outlined a draft
decision he had prepared for COP-3 requesting provision for
two more AG13 sessions, each lasting six half-days, with
the aim of completing work by COP-4. Meeting the target
date would not be guaranteed.
On the scope and elements of an MCP, the Chair invited
comments on the ordering of paragraphs in the MCP
compilation text. The EU said the opening paragraph should
refer to a “process” as mandated by FCCC Article 13.
Reference to the establishment of a committee should follow
later. The US warned against getting ahead of COP-3 and
added that he was not in a position to endorse any course
of action for AG13. The Chair invited comments on the first
paragraph of the MCP compilation. Parties discussed: the
introduction of a reference to FCCC Article 13; whether the
paragraph should refer only to the establishment of a
committee or to a process with a subsequent paragraph on a
committee, or both; whether such a committee should be
“standing” or “ad hoc;” and whether a committee should
report directly to the COP or to the SBI.
On 29 July, delegates engaged in a paragraph-by-paragraph
review of the draft compilation of proposals. Parties
agreed on a reformulated introductory paragraph prepared by
a working group chaired by Zimbabwe. The paragraph
establishes the MCP as a set of procedures to be served by
a committee. There was no agreement on whether the
committee should be standing or ad hoc or whether it should
be established under the SBI.
On a paragraph that sets out objectives, the Chair noted an
EU proposal, supported by SWITZERLAND and AUSTRALIA, to
refer to the “process” rather than the committee. The US,
supported by SAUDI ARABIA, proposed that the MCP provide
Parties with advice on “their” implementation of the
Convention. The EU said Article 13 of the FCCC refers to
advice on “the” implementation.
On related subparagraphs, there was no agreement on the
objectives of promoting understanding of the Convention and
preventing disputes. The Chair noted support from IRAN,
CHILE and CHINA for the inclusion of the provision of
assistance to Parties together with an EU suggestion that
the committee advise other elements of the FCCC on
providing financial and technological assistance.
The Chair agreed to note IRAN’s proposal, supported by
SAUDI ARABIA, to reformulate three subparagraphs to read:
“Providing [consultative] assistance to the Parties in need
in order to facilitate implementation of the Convention and
finding solutions to the possible problems in this regard.”
The Chair noted that the question of providing assistance
was likely to continue to haunt the Parties.
AUSTRALIA and the US objected to a suggestion by
SWITZERLAND, supported by FRANCE, that the objectives
include a reference to a protocol. The Chair advised
Parties to forget references to a protocol until next year.
The Chair said a paragraph stating that the MCP will be
separate from and without prejudice to the provisions of
FCCC Article 14 (settlement of disputes) is based on
wording from the Montreal Protocol. SAUDI ARABIA recalled
that FCCC Article 13 is not a non-compliance procedure. The
Chair invited Parties to ask whether the MCP’s relationship
to the settlement of disputes in FCCC Article 14 arose at
all, given its “helpline” nature.
Delegates also discussed a paragraph concerning the
committee mandate. It was agreed that the title should be
changed to “Mandate of the Committee.” There was
significant debate on provision of assistance to Parties,
including proposals by CHINA, SWITZERLAND, the EU and the
US. SWITZERLAND agreed to go along with the EU proposal
that assistance should consist of advice and
recommendations on technical and financial aspects. The
remaining proposals will appear in the new compilation
text. There was considerable debate on the role of the COP.
On 30 July, AG13-5 considered the draft report to COP-3
(FCCC/AG13/1997/CRP.2). The draft report states that the
establishment of any MCP must be within the framework of
the FCCC. AG13’s next session will consider whether to
adjust its framework draft text in light of the AGBM
negotiations. Parties decided to hold two more sessions of
six and eight meetings to complete work before COP-4. The
entire framework text remains in brackets.
In the introductory paragraph the options describing the
MCP procedures as “ad hoc” or “standing” remain in
brackets. Each of the proposals on objectives of the MCP, a
new proposal on providing consultative assistance to
Parties, and elements in the proposed Mandate of the
Committee are also bracketed. Decisions have also been held
over on questions of how issues will be taken up by the
MCP, and whether one or more Parties will be involved in
making submissions. In the Outcome section, a paragraph
that would subject conclusions and recommendations from the
MCP to the consent of the Party or Parties concerned
remains in brackets.
The EU, supported by CHILE, SAUDI ARABIA and SWITZERLAND
called for at least two more AG13 sessions, each lasting
eight half-days and, with KUWAIT and FRANCE, called for a
stronger commitment to completion of work by COP-4. The US
and CHINA did not agree. Chair Szell modified the draft
decision for COP-3 (FCCC/AG13/1997/CRP.2 Annex III) to
indicate that AG13 should continue beyond the COP, invite
AG13 to complete its work by COP-4 and request it to report
to COP-4 on progress if it fails to meet the target date.
He also amended the draft report (Organizational Matters)
to indicate that AG13 will require two further sessions
each consisting of about six to eight meetings.
Reviewing the draft compilation for a Multilateral
Consultative Process (MCP) (Annex II), in a paragraph
describing how issues are to be taken up, CHINA asked for
the re-insertion of a reference, in brackets, to
consideration of any submission made by “a Party on its own
request.” KUWAIT, CHINA and SAUDI ARABIA questioned the
adequacy of a decision to cross-reference this procedural
paragraph in an earlier paragraph on the Mandate of the
Committee.
Rapporteur Andrej Kranjc (Slovenia) presented the draft
report of AG13-5 for adoption. The Chair noted that
detailed discussions would be needed at AG13-6 on:
assistance to Parties; the question of who can trigger
proceedings; and the implications of COP-3.
A BRIEF ANALYSIS OF THE AGBM
Now that AGBM-7 is history, many may ask if governments are
any closer to reaching agreement on strengthening the
Framework Convention on Climate Change. Alas, an assessment
of just how much was achieved is as open to interpretation
as was the much disputed status of Schubert’s “unfinished
symphony.” To make such an assessment, three key questions
were put to delegates and observers as they moved between
the Beethoven, Schubert and Haydn Rooms at the Maritim
Hotel during AGBM-7: where did the movement or progress
occur in this round of negotiations; what are the emerging
linkages or tradeoffs; and what are the key opportunities
in the all-important forthcoming intersessional period to
advance the process to achieve an outcome acceptable in the
eyes of the Parties.
THE AGBM’S SEVENTH MOVEMENT: In the absence of initial
formal proposals for emissions reduction targets by the US
and Japan, there was a widespread sense that most of the
progress achieved at this session was limited to a
reduction in the number of proposals in Chair Estrada-
Oyuela’s negotiating text. One NGO hoped that Parties might
now begin to distance themselves from ownership of
individual proposals and recognize the Chair’s forthcoming
text at AGBM-8 as more of a common enterprise. Others were
less than impressed. They suggested that some negotiating
positions had hardened while some Parties, clearly
determined to distance themselves from the whole process,
had tabled unrealistic proposals to cover their retreat.
Stepping tentatively toward negotiation, the US went some
way towards accepting, in principle, the so called European
“bubble” concept, i.e. internally differentiating targets
for emission reductions. The EU made it clear that they
would accept trading if the levels of targets agreed under
the Berlin Mandate are “adequate.” Another development has
been the shift in the OECD countries’ position on a
comprehensive approach. A majority of these countries now
view the multiple gases approach as a way of delivering
stronger targets -- something they could not be confident
about in regard to CO2. An issue that is now likely to
emerge is the complexity of the monitoring regime required.
A “qualified comprehensive approach” may emerge, with an
initial focus on industrial gases. A third shift was the
proposal by Brazil, the first large developing country to
envision a future in which all countries adopt new
commitments and the first outside AOSIS to discuss targets.
The EU’s bid for a leadership role on strong targets along
with policies and measures was frustrated by the near
absence of support from other developed countries and the
G-77. One observer’s explanation for the absence of that
support in the case of the G-77/CHINA referred to
Tanzania’s leadership role within the G-77/CHINA,
compounded by the political dynamic in the group. The
Tanzanian Chair, new to the intergovernmental process but
an expert in the issues, stuck hard and fast to the group
principle that no position should be adopted where one
member dissents. This principle stems from what has been
described as a “false sense of brotherhood” defined by an
unwavering opposition to the OECD. Whoever manipulates that
opposition effectively tends to win out within the group.
This helps to explain the influence of a handful of
countries in the G-77/CHINA decision-making process. Saudi
Arabia, for example, reportedly managed to become more
entrenched than ever as a key player within the Group at
this session of the AGBM and was allowed to present the
Group’s position on a couple of occasions.
Other key players also attracted criticism. While the
Clinton administration has been moving toward a strong
stand on climate change policy, it has been reported that
opponents of the administration “caused havoc” and even
engaged in attempts to undermine and discredit the US
delegation in Bonn. The intense domestic political battles
in the US were, in effect, being played out around the
edges of the negotiations at the AGBM, helping to put the
brakes on progress. A remotely controlled intervention in
the process came via the Senate resolution demanding that
the US negotiators dig their heels in to avoid any
unilateral commitments by industrialized countries. A co-
sponsor of the resolution, West Virginia Senator Robert
Byrd, privately lobbied Chair Estrada but got short shrift.
An academic observer suggested that the G-77/China position
had hardened in response to the Senate resolution and US
calls for an evolutionary approach to the Berlin Mandate.
He agreed with speculation that this outcome was the
objective of some sophisticated lobbying by US
industrialists who were determined to attack the “soft
underbelly,” of the process, i.e. exploiting the North-
South tensions and fears about losing jobs at home.
The domestic difficulties of the US are echoed somewhat in
Japan. The latter’s difficulties are compounded by the
responsibilities that go with playing host to a major UN
conference, a privilege which must now appear to some in
Tokyo as a poison chalice. Japan’s domestic constituency is
for the most part in favor of a strong protocol. Initial
signals on Japanese targets -- proposals permitting some
developed country emission increases tentatively floated in
the corridors -- met with a hostile reception from NGOs.
One senior European observer marked this down as a notable
political development in itself. Observers further noted
that this kind of public pressure from NGOs will be an
important element of remaining negotiations despite the
“lock-out” from formal meetings.
Political tensions in Japan as to what type of targets to
support are reflected in political divisions between
Japanese government ministries, with serious concern at the
Ministry of International Trade and Industry. The Prime
Minister is expected to intervene soon to “knock heads
together” to avoid an embarrassing struggle at Kyoto and --
above all -- to avoid surprises.
NORTH-SOUTH OVERTURES: Even rabid “evolutionists” do not
necessarily insist that the new developing country actions
take place now, but that they must establish some mechanism
that will consider when those actions may occur and how
they may be determined. Observers say that scheduled
reviews of commitments under the FCCC could provide a venue
for considering developing country actions that is
politically linked to but formally separate from a new
protocol or legal instrument agreed in Kyoto. The review of
annexes is another tool cited by observers as a means of
extending the group of countries taking primary
responsibility for FCCC commitments. Both of these
approaches could leave the onus of responsibility on Annex
I countries while eventually answering the concern that all
parties participate. Presentation and appearance are often
key to political success, and the presentation of a two-
part package -- with the non-Annex I Parties on board for
Berlin Mandate - The Sequel -- could offer a solution.
In this regard, some observers were surprised to find that
the US had not pushed harder in its negotiations on Article
4.1. They concluded that the delegation had decided to “put
most of their eggs into another basket,” i.e. the demand
for an evolutionary approach to the Berlin Mandate
(bringing developing countries in sooner rather than
later), focusing on a review of the adequacy of commitments
and joint implementation. This may explain Chair Estrada’s
decision to avoid an “explosion” and leave evolution and
review of adequacy out of his negotiating text.
AN INSTRUMENT FOR FOUR SEASONS: The headline issues of
greenhouse gas emission targets and timetables are so far
untouchable, quietly muffled beneath the shade of the
obscure term “QELROs.” The lack of specific target
proposals from two of the largest GHG producers places a
hold on that aspect of the process. So much so that the
Chair of the QELROs non-group speculated that an attempt to
address them might embarrass some Parties.
Whether policies and measures should be legally binding or
not, is another issue yet to be resolved. Although there
are provisions in the current draft to the effect that
Parties must draw up binding national plans for limiting
and reducing anthropogenic emissions by sources and
enhancing removal by sinks, there is a draft escape clause
that states: “Parties will continue to retain maximum
flexibility in deciding how best, based on their national
circumstances, they can reach emission limitation/reduction
objectives.” The ongoing debate over flexibility resumes in
the discussion of policies and measures. There seems to be
a tendency to accept that some P&Ms will be classified as
mandatory, but which ones, how many and other details are
far from clear.
Regarding whether objectives shall be achieved individually
or jointly, a distinction was established whereby
commitments will be met individually, but P&M’s may be
undertaken in a common/coordinated way. Further
clarification will be needed on how the common/coordinated
approach will operate. A reference was made to a
coordination process to be instituted under SBSTA to
develop guidelines for implementing the common measures set
out in both mandatory and high priority P&Ms. The inclusion
of an “Annex Q1” of countries that are to take measures to
mitigate climate change hints at another route to inclusion
of non-Annex I Parties in new commitments.
INTERLUDE: The intersessional period leading up to AGBM-8
in October and the period between AGBM-8 and COP-3 will
undoubtedly assume unusual significance. Key events along
the way will be an imminent intersessional meeting in
Germany to be chaired by Estrada, a White House meeting in
October when targets may be announced, a Japanese-hosted
meeting for 10 Annex I Parties in early September, EU-US
bilaterals, and a G-7+I meeting in November. Estrada is
also expected to conduct other informal consultations.
REPRISE: The real world political and economic global order
as we enter the 21st century is more complex than it was
when climate change arrived on the political agenda -- a
fact that raises all kinds of contradictions in the
structure of the FCCC, not least the question of who really
belongs in Annex I and Annex II and the distribution of
responsibility. Weighed against that observation is the
fact that debts to history -- notably the history of North-
South relations and that of industrial GHG emissions--
survive much longer than contemporary economic trends.
While climate change is undoubtedly an environmental issue
-- the paramount issues at the AGBM are increasingly
exposed as questions concerning the concealed political and
economic costs of the industrialized world’s free ride to
unsustainable development. Whether Berlin Mandate
negotiators will produce what one observer called “an
impossible mass” to resolve at Kyoto, or the critical mass
to address an objective to which all Parties have already
committed, must become clearer with the passing of the
seasons.
THINGS TO LOOK FOR IN THE INTERSESSIONAL PERIOD
FCCC SUBSIDIARY BODIES: The next sessions of the subsidiary
bodies are scheduled to take place in Bonn from 20-31
October 1997. SBI and SBSTA will meet from 20-22 October
and will hold their final sessions during the second week.
The remainder of the time will be devoted to AGBM. AG13
will not meet. The third Conference of the Parties (COP-3)
is scheduled for 1-10 December 1997 in Kyoto, Japan. For
all meetings related to the FCCC, contact the secretariat
in Bonn, Germany; tel: +49-228-815-1000; fax: +49-228-815-
1999; e-mail: secretariat@unfccc.de. Also try the FCCC home
page at http://www.unfccc.de and UNEP’s Information Unit
for Conventions at http://www.unep.ch/iuc.html.
TRAINING WORKSHOP ON PRESENTING NATIONAL IMPLEMENTATION
STRATEGIES: The Training Workshop on Presenting National
Implementation Strategies will be held from 25-27 August
1997 in Lima, Peru. The objective is to prepare national
implementation strategies. For more information contact
Stephen Gold, CC:TRAIN; tel: +41-22-733-1383; fax: +41-22-
733-1383; e-mail: sgold.unitar@unep.ch.
AFRICAN REGIONAL WORKSHOP ON THE PREPARATION OF INITIAL
NATIONAL COMMUNICATIONS: This workshop will be held from
28-30 August 1997 in Dakar, Senegal. The workshop, which
will be held in English and French, will cover a wide range
of issues and focus on the specific and needs of African
countries. Working Groups will be established for different
thematic areas. For information contact: Youba Sokona,
ENDA-Energy; tel: +221-225-983; fax: +221-217-595.
US REGIONAL CLIMATE CHANGE WORKSHOPS: Regional workshops
will examine the vulnerabilities of various regions of the
US to climate variability and climate change and to
aggregate information across regions to support national-
scale scientific assessment. The New England Workshop will
be held from 3-5 September 1997 in Durham, New Hampshire.
For more information contact: Clara Kustra; tel: +1-603-
862-3484; fax: +1-603-862-1915; e-mail: clara@unh.edu. Also
try http://www.necci.sr.unh.edu/. The Southwest Regional
Workshop will be held from 3-4 September 1997 in Tucson,
Arizona. For more information contact Jon Unruh; tel: +1-
520-621-7189; e-mail: unruhj@u.arizona.edu. Also try:
http://vpr2.admin.arizona.edu/udall_center/CLIMATE.HTM. The
National Workshop on Climate Change Impacts will be held
from 10-12 November 1997 in Washington, DC.
TRAINING WORKSHOP ON PRESENTING NATIONAL IMPLEMENTATION
STRATEGIES: The Training Workshop on Presenting National
Implementation Strategies will be held from 15-19 September
1997 in Senegal. The objective is to train participants to
prepare national implementation strategies. For more
information contact Stephen Gold, CC:TRAIN; tel: +41-22-
733-1383; fax: +41-22-733-1383; e-mail:
sgold.unitar@unep.ch.
REGIONAL WORKSHOP ON CLEAN ENERGY TECHNOLOGIES, PROJECT
DEVELOPMENT AND FINANCE FOR ECONOMIES IN TRANSITION: This
workshop, scheduled from 22-26 September 1997 in Budapest,
Hungary, will provide a forum for the facilitation of
projects on greenhouse gas mitigation technologies between
energy efficiency and renewable energy project developers
and the international financial community. For information
contact: Christopher Bordeaux; tel: +1-202-586-3070; fax:
+1-202-586-3485/3486; e-mail:
christopher.bordeaux@hq.doe.gov.
KLIMA ‘97 LEIPZIG: This conference and trade fair,
scheduled from 25-28 September 1997 in Leipzig, Germany,
encompasses all technical, scientific, economic and social
measures relating to the protection and preservation of the
climate. For information contact: Ingomar Brandl, UTEC
International Kongress-und Ausstellungs-Service GmbH,
Hainstrasse 16, D-04109 Leipzig; tel: + 49-341- 960-6797;
fax + 49-341-960 6798.
GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS TRADING MEETING: The OECD
Environmental Directorate will hold a meeting to discuss
“International Greenhouse Gas Emission Trading” from 29-30
September 1997 in Paris. For more information contact the
OECD; tel: +33-01-45-24-82-00; fax: +33-01-45-24-85-00; e-
mail: news.contact@oecd.org. Also try http://www.oecd.org/.
LATIN AMERICAN REGIONAL WORKSHOP ON PREPARATION OF NATIONAL
COMMUNICATIONS: This workshop will be held in Itaipu,
Brazil, from 30 September - 2 October 1997 and will be held
in Spanish and Portuguese. It will include individual
country presentations on the status of the preparation of
national communications and include rapporteurs reporting
back on thematic issues for group discussions. For more
information contact: John O’Brien, UNDP/GEF in New York;
tel: +1-212-906-6033; fax: +1-212-908-6998.
TRAINING WORKSHOP ON PREPARING IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGIES:
The Training Workshop on Preparing National Implementation
Strategies will be held from 29 September - 3 October 1997
in Benin. Other training workshops will be held in Chad
from 20-24 October 1997 and in Bolivia from 5-7 November
1997. The objectives is to train participants to prepare
national implementation strategies. For more information
contact Stephen Gold, CC:TRAIN; tel: +41-22-733-1383; fax:
+41-22-733-1383; e-mail: sgold.unitar@unep.ch
INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON ENERGY AND THE ENVIRONMENT,
EFFICIENT UTILIZATION OF ENERGY AND WATER RESOURCES: This
conference is scheduled from 12-14 October 1997 in
Limassol, Cyprus. For information contact: Dr. Savvas
Tassou, Department of Mechanical Engineering, Brunel
University, Uxbridge, Middlesex, UB8 3PH, United Kingdom;
Fax: +44 (0)1895-256392; e-mail:
savvas.tassou@brunel.ac.uk.
ASIA-PACIFIC INITIATIVE FOR RENEWABLE ENERGY AND ENERGY
EFFICIENCY ‘97: Asia Pacific Initiative for Renewable
Energy & Energy Efficiency ‘97 will be held from 14-16
October 1997 in Jakarta, Indonesia and is sponsored by
Alternative Development Asia; tel: +852-257-49133; fax:
+852-257-41997; e-mail: altdev@hk.spuer.net.
CONFERENCE ON CLIMATE CHANGE: The Conference “Targeting
Kyoto and Beyond,” sponsored by Climate Network Europe
(CNE), the Global Legislators Organization for a Balanced
Environment (GLOBE-EU) and Germanwatch, will be held from
16-17 October 1997 at the Bundestag in Bonn, Germany. The
Conference will feature a parliamentarians workshop, a
ministerial panel and a business roundtable. For
information contact: CNE; tel: +32-2-231-01-80; fax: +32-2-
230-57-13; e-mail: canron@gn.apc.org.
CLIMATE-L
An E-mail List for the UNFCCC Process
The International Institute for Sustainable Development
(IISD), publisher of the Earth Negotiations Bulletin, is
pleased to announce a new e-mail distribution list intended
to facilitate information exchange on the UN Framework
Convention on Climate Change process.
CLIMATE-L is a moderated list for the dissemination of
news, information on past and upcoming meetings related to
the UNFCCC, copies of position papers and pointers to on-
line resources such as WWW sites and longer documents.
CLIMATE-L is intended to be a very focused list with
short messages and messages with links to other on-line
documents. If you wish, it is possible to configure your
subscription to the digested version so that you receive
only one e-mail message per week from the list.
To subscribe send a message to listproc@mbnet.mb.ca with
the following in the body of the message:
subscribe CLIMATE-L [your name]
Subscribers can send mail to the entire list at
CLIMATE-L@mbnet.mb.ca
For assistance in subscribing or for further information
contact us at enb@iisd.org
This issue of the Earth Negotiations Bulletin
is written and edited by Paola Bettelli
, Chad Carpenter, LL.M.
, Peter Doran
Benjamin Simmons , and Steve Wise
. The Editor is Pamela Chasek, Ph.D.
and the Managing Editor is Langston James
Kimo Goree VI .The sustaining donors of the
Bulletin are the Netherlands Ministry for Development
Cooperation and the Government of Canada. General support
for the Bulletin during 1997 is provided by the Department
for International Development (DID) of the United Kingdom,
the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Denmark, the European
Community (DG-XI), the German Ministry of Environment,
Nature Conservation and Nuclear Safety, the Ministries of
Environment and Foreign Affairs of Austria, the Ministry of
Environment of Sweden, the Swiss Federal Office of the
Environment, and UNDP. The ENB can be contacted at tel: +1-
212-644-0204; fax: +1-212-644-0206. IISD can be contacted
at 161 Portage Avenue East, 6th Floor, Winnipeg, Manitoba
R3B 0Y4, Canada; tel: +1-204-958-7700; fax: +1-204-958-
7710. The opinions expressed in the Earth Negotiations
Bulletin are those of the authors and do not necessarily
reflect the views of IISD and other funders. Excerpts from
the Earth Negotiations Bulletin may be used in other
publications only with appropriate citation. Electronic
versions of the ENB are sent to e-mail distribution lists
and can be found on the Linkages WWW-server at